[NU Sports] Football Rule changes for 2012

[Beamsley, Jeff]

I agree that injuries are part of any contact sport.
 
I also agree that anyone engaged in football at any level should be aware that contact could result in injury.
 
The difference here is that concusions are not nearly as obvious an injury as a busted ACL.  While it is possible in later life to have a full knee replacement, it is not possible to reverse the effects of repeated concusions.
 
Those of my generation or older (Clay-Liston) can remember when boxing WAS a widely televised national sport.  In 1960 the NCAA abruptly dropped college boxing after the death of Wisconsin boxer Doug Moe.
 
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/doug_moe/article_4a56a5e8-012c-580d-bde9-21361d66b3a4.html
 
"Although college boxers wore head gear, used padded gloves and fought only three two-minute rounds, the sport had been attacked as barbaric and inappropriate for good universities. In 1959, Sports Illustrated ran a piece on the problems facing college boxing. It was titled "You could blame it on the moms.""

Moms could also easily rise up in opposition to their kids playing football if good data starts to suggest that brain injuries are a much higher risk than anyone thought.
 
It is great that people are starting to look at this.  We don't yet, however, have a good picture of what the risk really is.  Hopefully concern about the players will overwhelm any anxiety over what the real data is.
 
Jeff

________________________________

From: Dennis W. Brandt [mailto:tbng at comcast.net]
Sent: Sun 2/26/2012 7:06 PM
To: Beamsley, Jeff; Eric Kunkel; nwu-sports at tssi.com
Subject: Re: [NU Sports] Football Rule changes for 2012


<This may come down to where you sit on the political spectrum, and that's not what this list is about.
 
I haven't a clue as to what the subject of concussions has to do with politics.
 
<This is certainly a problem that we fans can ignore.  We can also say that this is a risk that kids take, so we shouldn't worry about it.  Or we can wander off into the political arguments about the intrusion of government and the growth of the nanny-state.
 
And good arguments they are - and not just about football.
  
< I think that it is time to acknowledge that there is a problem and that something needs to be done about it
 
Who doesn't acknowledge it?  The NFL has.  The NCAA has.  There has been major developments in helmet design.  There have been well publicized studies on the topic.  I have a friend, a doctor of psychology, who is heavily involved in researching the subject.  Football has made major rule changes that have largely eliminated the egregious hits such as Terry Bradshaw once endured.  But as I said previously, as long as you have powerful, strong, fast men racing around a field playing a game that by necessity requires brutal physical contact, injuries will occur.  Short of banning the game of football - and boxing and mixed martial arts and downhill skiing and hockey and auto racing etc. - or watering it down to flag football status, you can't stop injuries.
 
<If we continue to ignore the problem, football could easily go the way of boxing and become a mainly pro sport where the risks are well known and significant, and only those who have few other choices choose to participate.
 
Extremely doubtful the sport will fade.  And anyone going into the sport thinking that injury is unlikely will be convinced otherwise during their first practice in full pads.